Big Muddy rancher wrote:I concur on Soapweed's view of wind energy but as one who live between two coal powered generating station I don't really like seeing what they have done to the land that has been mined. I will concede that they are doing a better job of reclaim then they had done in the past.Since here in Sask, the power corp is a "Crown" I didn't care for they way they dealt with landowners and how the rules didn't really apply to them.

Nobody likes change. Im sure someone back in the day thought windmills (Dempster/Aeromotor) were ugly too. Once a person gets use to windmill, pivot, elevator, power line, cell tower, etc they aren't so ugly. Have you seen pictures of huge solar panels out in the deserts? Those aren't very picturesque either IMHO. How many birds get hit by planes? Im no expert on solar, but I don't know of those huge solar panels as reliable as your electric fencer/water pump. I would like to know how much subsidy all the nuclear/hydro plants got? Now NPPD (Omaha public power) is shutting down the smallest nuclear power plant in the United States because it's "inefficient". I have yet to figure that one out.

Nuclear is the cheapest & cleanest there is. It is also safe. Im guessing you don't want one of them in Cherry County either? Nobody else does either, thats the problem. Im guessing you did like your air conditioning this week? I doubt you had air conditioning when you had the 32 volt barn chargers? Thats the problem with all of this, weather its the Keystone pipeline, the NPPD R-Project, or wind farms....we all want bacon with our eggs, just have the hog barn not in my back yard. The need for power keeps growing, and some how it has to be met.

American coal energy is very clean, cheap, and efficient. We have oodles of it. It is eventually going to run out. Yes, it does cause some poluation. So does construction of nuclear/wind/hydro/solar facility. Eventually we will run out of coal, someday. We need to do something sooner than later. I agree there are a lot of negatives towards wind towers. We have to do something. Wind towers are easier to get the vast majority of the public to accept. Yep all the power generated in Cherry, Holt, Antolope, Boone, Custer, Brown, Knox counties....etc go eslewhere. We have to sacrifice for someone else....I understand that point. Yet if there isn't enough power to go around, who do you think will have priority, the rural or the city? I have a guess & I sure like my air conditioning. I guess if my cows could graze underneath of one, I get paid a lease, and generate some property taxes....it isn't all bad. Yes, there are some long term issues like what happens when it isn't in use & the blades are about ready to fall off. I highly doubt they are constructed that poorly, but just using that as an example......those type of issues need to be addressed when you negotiate. If you don't get enough, then don't participate. Of course if your wanting to buy land, then thats an issue. Then again, how many places have an old dump or cistern on the property. I know that isn't as huge of an issue as a gigantic wind tower, but its still an issue with the DEQ! Not sure which is a lessor evil there?

I read an article a long time ago about the negatives on solar. The author was slightly biased towards solar, you a person has to keep that in the back of your mind. I can't remember any specifics right now, but it did have some draw backs. I think one was land. With a tower, you can farm/graze around them. Solar panels, those acres are gone. Another one was reflecting vast amounts of heat back into the atmosphere. Nothing is perfect. Otherwise Id think solar would be pushed harder for the exact reasons you have mentioned wind is a poor choice. They do create some property taxes. Ive head the arguement about less valuation of your land. To some people the chance to buy piece of land with lease from a wind farm would make them want to pay more. If your land does loose value, well your taxes are less! Yes, thats sarcasim. I understand the assets side.

I turely do understand your points Steve. They are good and valid points. Guess all Ive heard in the last 10 years are arguements against any from of progress. Nobody want to have to sacrifice (ya we need it, just not in my back yard), yet something has to be done sometime.

I have heard that very durable solar panels are being designed, which can be used to cover parking lots and highways. That is a concept that definitely has merit.

One of my friends from Oregon says the government, in its infinite wisdom, is taking out dams which provide hydro-electric power. There is nothing more efficient than water-powered electricity, and to do this is nothing short of treason.

I've been doing some looking: for $7000. I can put solar panels on the 1000 sq' on the south facing slope and mostly supply the house on all but the most overcast days. Certainly we enjoy cheap electricity and coal and natural gas have us covered for centuries. I like our chances of finding better alternatives than centuries old windmills.

Solar has come a very long way in its efficiency and cost. Wind is so highly subsidized I have a hard time getting behind it. I am all for "clean energy" but I am totally against the eco-Nazi movement to greenify everything at all costs. The folks behind removing dams are radical environmental groups plain and simple! If thousands of miners, truckers and power plant employees lose their jobs because coal is evil, so be it! This is political at its core! The science isn't there at all to back up the claims of the sky falling. I am in favor of thinking outside the box and finding new ways to generate power. From tidal turbines to nuclear. What I am tired of are the radical green groups who want to ban everything they don't like. And the damn hypocrites still have power in their homes! I might respect a greeny that lived totally without electricity, but I aint met one yet. Remember folks, everything we have was either grown or mined!

leanin' H wrote:Solar has come a very long way in its efficiency and cost. Wind is so highly subsidized I have a hard time getting behind it. I am all for "clean energy" but I am totally against the eco-Nazi movement to greenify everything at all costs. The folks behind removing dams are radical environmental groups plain and simple! If thousands of miners, truckers and power plant employees lose their jobs because coal is evil, so be it! This is political at its core! The science isn't there at all to back up the claims of the sky falling. I am in favor of thinking outside the box and finding new ways to generate power. From tidal turbines to nuclear. What I am tired of are the radical green groups who want to ban everything they don't like. And the damn hypocrites still have power in their homes! I might respect a greeny that lived totally without electricity, but I aint met one yet. Remember folks, everything we have was either grown or mined!

Very true!

I read this thread last night on another site. People discussing both sides. Thought Id share.

Solar energy - wind or photovoltaic - is going to be a lot like urban transportation.

Very few. if any, public transport system support themselves from rider fares. Most collect less than half of thecost from fares. They subsidize all sorts of riders - old folks, disabled, etc with cheap fares.

Once a system is established and running, it is impossible to undo it. The express train route from San Franciscois just the latest example. But that is what the prople want since they elect the proponents of such projectstime and time again.

Providing electricity to the nation is going down the same path. As an old goat, I won't be around in a few years so it won't make a lot of difference to me, but the trend is discouraging.

CP

Last edited by Cowpuncher on Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

Soapweed wrote:One of my friends from Oregon says the government, in its infinite wisdom, is taking out dams which provide hydro-electric power. There is nothing more efficient than water-powered electricity, and to do this is nothing short of treason.

Hydro electric dams are no friend of the environment. They are putting in another big one a few miles from home, and 8 billion dollar debacle that will flood historic farmland and pollute the water with mercury for generations to come. Alternative energy projects can produce power for as little as 1/2 price per megawatt hour. There are a great many reasons that hydro is a dinosaur and should become extinct like one.

Soapweed wrote:One of my friends from Oregon says the government, in its infinite wisdom, is taking out dams which provide hydro-electric power. There is nothing more efficient than water-powered electricity, and to do this is nothing short of treason.

Hydro electric dams are no friend of the environment. They are putting in another big one a few miles from home, and 8 billion dollar debacle that will flood historic farmland and pollute the water with mercury for generations to come. Alternative energy projects can produce power for as little as 1/2 price per megawatt hour. There are a great many reasons that hydro is a dinosaur and should become extinct like one.

There could be valid reasons not to build new dams, but why take out ones that are already in place and working very well?

Big Muddy rancher wrote:I concur on Soapweed's view of wind energy but as one who live between two coal powered generating station I don't really like seeing what they have done to the land that has been mined. I will concede that they are doing a better job of reclaim then they had done in the past.Since here in Sask, the power corp is a "Crown" I didn't care for they way they dealt with landowners and how the rules didn't really apply to them.

Some of the most beautiful pasture land and hay fields you'll see down here are reclaimed mining land. We don't have hard coal but a lot of lignite is mined and used to fire plants and the land reclaimed to look awesome. And the power plants run very cleanly. Yet at the same time it is not unusual to see half dozen long trains loaded with nothing but hard coal coming from Wyoming and other places to fire power plants in other areas of the state. (Even on Warren Buffet's Burlington Northern trains).

Nothing but a beggar trying to show other beggars where I found bread.

Mike wrote:Hydro power is the most efficient electricity provider and by far the most environmentally friendly. Almost 90% efficient.

There is nothing about Hydro power production that causes mercury production/pollution. Or any other chemical pollutant.

That's simply not true Mike. High levels of mercury occur as a result of decaying matter from the plants and trees that are submerged. That's a fact. The environmental footprint is usually devastating because as a general rule bottom land tends to be the most productive. Dams don't last forever, who's going to clean the mess up? Geothermal, run of river, tidal, you name it can all be done as demand requires it and as we can afford it. When these projects reach the end of their life cycle we can pick up our toys, spread seed, and leave.We could burn the natural gas that we can't find a market for to create power. Nuclear is a great option. Dams are ridiculous. I live 30 minutes from 2 dams, with a third one being built now that makes zero economic sense and my great grand kids won't finish paying for.